So lately I've been reading the book You Are Not A Gadget by computer scientist/musician Jaron Lanier, and he has a little section about modern music that I thought might encourage some interesting discussion. I don't agree with him necessarily, however, I thought this would be interesting to post nonetheless.
Here's the excerpt from his book:
Quote:
“Popular music created in the industrialized world in the decade from the late 1990s to the late 2000s doesn’t have a distinct style – that is, one that would provide an identity for the young people who grew up with it…Where is the new music? Everything is retro, retro, retro.
…There are new styles of music, of course, but they are new only on the basis of technicalities. For instance, there’s an elaborate nomenclature for species of similar electronic beat styles (involving all the possible concatenations of terms like dub, house, trance, and so on), and if you learn the details of the nomenclature, you can more or less date and place a track.
…I have frequently gone through a conversational sequence along the following lines: Someone in his early twenties will tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, and then I’ll challenge that person to play me some music that is characteristic of the late 2000s as opposed to the late 1990s. I’ll ask him to play the tracks for his friends. So far, my theory has held: even true fans don’t seem to be able to tell if an indie rock track or a dance mix is from 1998 or 2008, for instance.
I’m obviously not claiming that there has been no new music in the world. And I’m not claiming that all retro music is disappointing. There are some wonderful musicians in the retro mold, treating old pop music styles as a new kind of classical music and doing so marvelously well.
But I am saying that this kind of work is more nostalgic than reaching. Since genuine human experiences are forever unique, pop music of a new era that lacks novelty raises my suspicions that it also lacks authenticity.
There are creative, original musicians at work today, of course. (I hope that on my best days I am one of them.) There are undoubtedly musical marvels hidden around the world. But this is the first time since electrification that mainstream youth culture in the industrialized world has cloaked itself primarily in nostalgic styles.”
Well he doesn't seem to be taking into account the internet at all, which is key...That explains why there isn't one defining aspect of music from the 00s...it can all sort of mesh together into altogether more unique entities. In regards to the retro stuff, I think that has always been around, and it is probably more popular because the styles are already established and familiar, and perhaps less diluted by other ideas. The other weirder, more unique stuff, is just so diluted by all sorts of different styles that they can't really stand up with one popular musical identity.
And in my opinion that period between late 90s to late 00s does have a pretty recognizable and unique style, but I wouldn't be able to define it.
Or something like that...Regardless, the 00s had the best music. ;P
I think that's an interesting point. Just because you can't define it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Absolutely. This guy seems like he had conversations with people who haven't really thought about it and couldn't give him an answer that satisfied him and now he thinks he's right. I'm sure there are people on this site who could shut him up. He reminds me of people who ask atheists that if there is no god, then how did we get here, and then the atheist just doesn't know, and suddenly that means that the answer must be god. _________________
And in my opinion that period between late 90s to late 00s does have a pretty recognizable and unique style, but I wouldn't be able to define it.
I think that's entirely the point, and in fact you've actually contradicted yourself by being unable to catagorise or even put a name to the 'recognizable and unique' sound(s) of the last decade-and-a-half.
There's been no 'game changing movement' in popular music for some time as there were in the 50s (rock and roll), 60s (British Invasion, folk-rock, soul, mod, 'hard rock'/heavy metal), 70s (glam, funk, prog, punk, disco), 80s (new wave, hip-hop, indie, 'alternative rock', (acid) house, techno et al) and early 90s (grunge). Britpop was where it all broke down - revisionism repackaged as revolution. Blame Oasis. And now blame Cowell.
I vividly remember my Mum saying in '94 when I left Blur's Parklife in my CD player how much she 'enjoyed listening to it'. Parents are supposed to loathe pop from beyond their generation - and it's this distinction between music of the past and the present that makes pop music so essential to the lives of most Western teenagers. When was the last time that happened? Now the pop stars of today and tomorrow are being chosen by Mums and Dads via telephone voting on talent shows. Christ alone knows how Boy George would have gone down on Pop Idol.
Think about it - all the above musical forms are not only typified by a specific style of music, but their own unique style of dress code/fashion. Between the 60s-90s a teenager had a choice of any number of movements to belong to and identify with. You could be a mod or a rocker - but not both. Or a new waver or a skinhead (as conveyed by Smell/Shaun in the film This Is England). What you listened to was reflected in what you wore, and I'm not just talking about band t-shirts. It was about belonging and identification with a movement, an over-riding zeitgeist which your parents couldn't comprehend. To coin a phrase, unless you want to be Fred Durst and wear a silly red hat, it's all been done before.
There's a really good book on this subject, written by Simon Reynolds (all his books are well worth a read, especially Rip It Up & Start Again). A lot of it talks about the Internet being responsible, partly due to how readily available the past is thanks to YouTube et al. It's fascinating stuff.
I think that's entirely the point, and in fact you've actually contradicted yourself by being unable to catagorise or even put a name to the 'recognizable and unique' sound(s) of the last decade-and-a-half.
There's been no 'game changing movement' in popular music for some time as there were in the 50s (rock and roll), 60s (British Invasion, folk-rock, soul, mod, 'hard rock'/heavy metal), 70s (glam, funk, prog, punk, disco), 80s (new wave, hip-hop, indie, 'alternative rock', (acid) house, techno et al) and early 90s (grunge). Britpop was where it all broke down - revisionism repackaged as revolution. Blame Oasis. And now blame Cowell.
I vividly remember my Mum saying in '94 when I left Blur's Parklife in my CD player how much she 'enjoyed listening to it'. Parents are supposed to loathe pop from beyond their generation - and it's this distinction between music of the past and the present that makes pop music so essential to the lives of most Western teenagers. When was the last time that happened? Now the pop stars of today and tomorrow are being chosen by Mums and Dads via telephone voting on talent shows. Christ alone knows how Boy George would have gone down on Pop Idol.
Think about it - all the above musical forms are not only typified by a specific style of music, but their own unique style of dress code/fashion. Between the 60s-90s a teenager had a choice of any number of movements to belong to and identify with. You could be a mod or a rocker - but not both. Or a new waver or a skinhead (as conveyed by Smell/Shaun in the film This Is England). What you listened to was reflected in what you wore, and I'm not just talking about band t-shirts. It was about belonging and identification with a movement, an over-riding zeitgeist which your parents couldn't comprehend. To coin a phrase, unless you want to be Fred Durst and wear a silly red hat, it's all been done before.
There's a really good book on this subject, written by Simon Reynolds (all his books are well worth a read, especially Rip It Up & Start Again). A lot of it talks about the Internet being responsible, partly due to how readily available the past is thanks to YouTube et al. It's fascinating stuff.
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
I really didn't contradict myself...I do agree there isn't one defining movement of this era, (I'm just not sure I agree the mainstream is simply harkening back) and that is because of you being able to be both a "mod" and a "rocker" to use your example, instead of them being exclusive. Everything is mixing together. Plus, movements are mingling more...there is a maelstrom of ideas to chose from, instead of slipping into just one scene or another. Even though having something to identify with is lost in this, I think it just means there is more individuality and uniqueness in the music. I think almost everything these days is unidentifiable and ambiguous and impossible-to-identify. There are positives and negatives to that.
And regarding parents being able to enjoy the music...well, with your one retro example, sure, but things like dubstep (well, usually the more popular "brostep" variety) are intensely popular and I highly doubt many parents would enjoy it. And regardless, I think artistic integrity stands high above creating scenes, and styles.
But from let say from 2008 to 2010 there is a major difference at least in pop music, all that swedish house mafia invasion that took over the world _________________ "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
